SUCCESSION DIGEST #1- PRELIM

They agreed to separate as husband and wife.

G.R. No. L-4963

Maria Uson was given a parcel of land by way of alimony and she
renounced her right to inherit any other property that may be left
by her husband upon his death.

January 29, 1953

MARIAUSON, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
MARIA DEL ROSARIO, CONCEPCION NEBREDA, CONRADO
NEBREDA, DOMINADOR NEBREDA, AND FAUSTINO NEBREDA,
Jr., defendants-appellants.

Issue: W/N the 4 minor children (illegitimate) can inherit from their
deceased fathers real property- No, R: Legal wifes right is
prejudiced.
Issue: W/N theres valid assignment/ donation NO.

An action for recovery of the ownership and possession of five (5)

parcels of land filed by Maria Uson against Maria del Rosario and
her four children named Concepcion, Conrado, Dominador, and
Faustino, surnamed Nebreda, who are all of minor age.

Maria Uson was the lawful wife of Faustino Nebreda who upon his
death in 1945 left the lands involved in this litigation.
Faustino left no other heir except his widow Maria Uson.
Plaintiff claims that when Faustino died in 1945, his common-law
wife Maria del Rosario took possession illegally of said lands thus
depriving her of their possession and enjoyment.

Defendants set up as special defense that on February 21, 1931,

Maria Uson and her husband executed a public document.

Court ordered the defendants to restore to the plaintiff the

ownership and possession of the lands.

There is no dispute that:

1. Maria Uson is the lawful wife of Faustino, former owner of the five
parcels of lands
2. defendants- was merely a common-law wife of the late Faustino
with whom she had four illegitimate children, (co-defendants).
3. Faustino died in 1945 much prior to the effectivity of the new
Civil Code.
It is evident that when Faustino died in 1945 the five parcels of land
passed from the moment of his death to his only heir, his widow
Maria Uson (Article 657, old Civil Code).
Court said, "The property belongs to the heirs at the moment of the
death of the ancestor as completely as if the ancestor had
executed and delivered to them a deed for the same before his
death".
From that moment, the rights of inheritance of Maria Uson over the
lands became vested.

The claim of the defendants that Maria Uson had relinquished her
right over the lands in question because she expressly renounced
to inherit any future property that her husband may acquire and
leave upon his death in the deed of separation cannot be
entertained.

 Reason: future inheritance cannot be the subject of a contract nor

can it be renounced.

though the event which gave rise to them may have occurred
under the former legislation, but this is so only when the new
rights do not prejudice any vested or acquired right of the same
origin.

ISSUE: W/N the 4 minor children (illegitimate) can inherit

from their deceased fathers real property- No, R: Legal
wifes right is prejudiced.

The right of ownership of Maria Uson over the lands in question

became vested in 1945 upon the death of her late husband

Defendants contend that the four minor illegitimate children of the

late under the new Civil Code which became in force in June,
1950, are given the status and rights of natural children and are
entitled to the successional rights and because these
successional rights were declared for the first time in the new
code, they shall be given retroactive effect even though the event
which gave rise to them may have occurred under the prior
legislation.

No merit in this claim.

Article 2253 above referred to provides indeed that rights which
are declared for the first time shall have retroactive effect even

This is so because of the imperative provision of the law which

commands that the rights to succession are transmitted from the
moment of death.
The new right recognized by the new Civil Code in favor of the
illegitimate children of the deceased cannot be asserted to the
impairment of the vested right of Maria Uson over the lands in
dispute.

The assignment made by Maria Uson of the lands to the minor

children, which partakes of the nature of a donation of real
property and has no valid effect because to be valid, it (involves
no material consideration)
Shall be:
1. Made in a public document &
2. accepted in the same document or a separate one.